HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/02/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
FEBRUARY 14, 2011
6:15 p.m. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEW – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 28, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Replacement of Virginia Avenue Railroad Bridge
3. 7:05 p.m. Freight Rail Options
4. 9:05 p.m. Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
5. 9:10 p.m. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
6. 9:15 p.m. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
7. 9:20 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. Citizen Notification Systems Update
9. “Dream Elevator” Public Art Sculpture - W. 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue
10. 2011 Liquor License Renewal - Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 28, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on
February 28, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the study session scheduled for February 28, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning February 28, 2011
Prepared by: Kris Luedke, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning - February 28, 2011
Study Session, Monday, February 28, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Community Recreation Survey Results – Parks & Recreation (30 minutes)
City staff and Consultant Kathy Shoenbauer will be available to share the results from the
Civic & Recreation Facilities Survey. The survey received 1055 responses from the
Community. This overview is intended to set the stage for a more detailed discussion at the
Council’s March 12 workshop.
3. Highway 100 – Public Works (60 minutes)
Continued discussion on the concepts for Hwy 100 and their impacts on St. Louis Park.
4. Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report & Work Plan –
Information Resources (5 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Telecommunications Advisory Commission’s
2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan. If so desired by the City Council, at a future study
session the Commissioners and staff liaisons will be available to discuss the annual report
and work plan with Council.
5. Housing Authority Annual Report & Work Plan – Community Development (5 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Housing Authority’s 2010 Annual Report and
2011 Work Plan. If so desired by the City Council, at a future study session the
Commissioners and staff liaisons will be available to discuss the annual report and work plan
with Council.
6. Planning Commission Annual Report & Work Plan – Community Development (5 minutes)
The City Council will be asked to review the Planning Commission’s 2010 Annual Report
and 2011 Work Plan. If so desired by the City Council, at a future study session the
Commissioners and staff liaisons will be available to discuss the annual report and work plan
with Council.
7. Fire Stations - Final Site Plan & Final Cost Estimates –
Community Development/Fire (45 minutes)
The construction drawing phase concludes with a presentation by City staff, architect and
construction manager of the plans for Fire Stations #1 and #2, and the final cost estimates. If
City Council is comfortable with the plans and estimates, formal action to Approve Plans and
Specifications and Authorize Bids will be placed on the March 7, 2011 Regular Meeting
Agenda.
8. Communications/Meeting Check-in – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
West End TIF Note
January 2011 Financial Report
Plan by Neighborhood Chapter – Comp Plan
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Replacement of Virginia Avenue Railroad Bridge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is in response to a Council request to provide information regarding the history,
condition, and possible replacement of the BN Railroad Bridge over Virginia Avenue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What other information on this topic is desired by Council?
BACKGROUND:
History - This bridge, Bridge #90673, is owned and maintained by the BN Railroad (Railroad).
The roadway beneath the bridge, Virginia Avenue, is owned and maintained by the City of St.
Louis Park The Railroad is responsible for inspecting the bridge; the city is responsible for
inspecting the roadway and roadway appurtenances along with a simple visual inspection of the
bridge annually. The bridge is aging and concrete surface spalling along with falling debris is an
issue at times. The Railroad made minor concrete surface repairs to address this in 2010. City
staff is not aware of any other plans the Railroad has on the horizon to make significant
improvements to the bridge in question. . Given the clearances associated with the bridge, truck
traffic is not able to use this portion of Virginia Ave.
The City pursued replacement of this bridge from 1979 thru 1982. The following information
was obtained from that project (78-47) file:
1. the railroad estimated the bridge had a minimum remaining life expectancy of 50 years
2. the railroad would not contribute any funds towards replacement of the bridge
3. preliminary bridge plans were actually developed
4. total project costs were then “conceptually” estimated at $1,200,000
5. identified resident concerns:
a. funding - no desire to pay for replacement with city funds
b. no desire to see increased traffic volumes and noise
c. opposed to truck traffic
6. project was terminated due to resident opposition and lack of funding
Current - even though the bridge is getting old and has some maintenance needs, staff is not
aware that it requires replacement; that determination is made by the Railroad. In addition, staff
is not aware of any state or federal program that would fund the replacement of this bridge. Staff
feels total project costs at this time could easily approach or exceed $5,000,000. To more
accurately assess that, a consultant versed in that work would need to be utilized.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Replacement of Virginia Ave. Railroad Bridge
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for the
community.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Freight Rail Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action recommended or required at this time. The purpose of this presentation and report is to
provide further analysis of the freight route options.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This SEH report is being provided to help the City Council determine what freight rail
alternative is in the long term best interest of the City of St. Louis Park.
BACKGROUND:
On December 13, 2010, the City Council received a freight rail background report from the
City’s rail consultant Dave McKenzie from SEH, Inc. At that time SEH was directed to prepare
a report regarding the further evaluation/exploration of the most viable alternative freight rail
routes identified.
The remaining alternative routes under consideration are:
1. Co-locating freight rail, light rail and regional trail in Kenilworth;
2. Co-locating freight rail and light rail in Kenilworth and moving the regional trail;
3. Utilizing freight rate subsidies for TCW to operate on routes west of the metro; and
4. Utilizing the MNS route.
This report considers and evaluates the first three alternatives. Information on the MNS Study
will not be available until the April-May timeframe. When that information is available, SEH
will evaluate it along side of the other options and provide some comparisons for the city.
NEXT STEPS:
Community Input. Following the City Council discussion, a process for community input is
intended to be initiated. The goal is to give the community the opportunity to receive the
information in the SEH analysis, ask questions and make comments. It will be part of the
continuing community dialog regarding the rail routing issue. We will continue to involve the
community, its organizations and neighborhoods in the process.
Technical review. The work by SEH has been prepared with input and base information from the
other agencies and technical consultants involved with the freight rail and LRT issues. They
have not yet had an opportunity to review and comment on the specifics of SEH’s report or
analysis. Their comments and insights are important and valuable in this process. Sharing of
information, meetings and discussions with the other agencies and consultants will proceed.
Outreach to other stakeholders. Similarly, St. Louis Park needs to continue its communication
and dialog with all the stakeholders in the rail routing issue including the County and
surrounding Cities.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Freight Rail Options
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The primary financial impact of the freight rail studies for the City is staff time and consultant
expense necessary to review documents and provide input. As we move forward costs will be
incurred for consultants to assist the city. The exact amount is difficult to estimate at this time.
Funding would come from the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic
vision to be a connected and engaged community; as well as leaders in environmental
stewardship.
Attachments: SEH Memo
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196
SEH is an equal opportunity employer | www.sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 651.490.2150 fax
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Dave McKenzie, P.E.
DATE: February 11, 2011
RE: Technical Memorandum #3
SEH No. STLOU 114331
Based on our review of the completed Hennepin County freight rail studies and through coordination with
City staff, a recommendation was presented to the City Council at the December 13, 2010 Study Session
Meeting to narrow the range of alternative freight routes based upon impacts identified in the respective
studies. This memo contains updated information on the four alternatives that were identified for
additional review.
A summary of the four alternatives are in Table 1. Additional details are discussed later in the memo.
Table 1
Alternative Description Comment
MN&S Sub Alignment Study Reroute of freight rail out of Kenilworth
Corridor and onto the MN&S in St Louis
Park.
Currently Under Study
(findings anticipated in spring 2011)
Western Connection Reroute of all TC&W traffic westerly
through Appleton MN and onto the BNSF
RR into the Twin Cities
Does not appear feasible
Kenilworth Corridor
Scenario 1: All Three Grade
Alignments At-Grade
Allow the freight, LRT and the bike trail
to coexist at grade in the corridor
Additional right of way is needed and
will require cooperation with many
agencies outside of St Louis Park to
achieve.
Kenilworth Corridor
Scenario 2: Trail Relocated
Allow the freight and LRT to coexist in
the corridor and relocate the bike trail
Additional right of way is needed and
will require cooperation with many
agencies outside of St Louis Park to
achieve. This is less intrusive than
Scenario 1.
MN&S Sub Alignment Study
Hennepin County is currently conducting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the MN&S
alternative. Results from that analysis expected to be known in the Spring of 2011. It is expected that
impacts and potential mitigation measures will be discussed at the Project Management Team (PMT)
meeting on February 24, 2011.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 3
Technical Memorandum #3
February 11, 2011
Page 2
Western Connection
The western connection alternative identified in the Amfahr Study originally suggested only rerouting
coal trains out of St Louis Park. In Amfahr’s proposal other TC&W trains would continue to travel
through St. Louis Park. Transporting coal is only one of four primary components of TC&W trains
passing through St. Louis Park. The other three elements are the local mixed-freight trains that operate
daily between Glencoe and St. Paul; ethanol trains; and, grain trains.
The SEH suggestion was to explore more fully the possibility that all of TC&W traffic be diverted
through this route, not just the coal trains. That is a much more difficult question to answer since much of
the TC&W’s freight originates or is delivered to eastern markets. To reroute this traffic on the BNSF
would add about 120 miles and 2 or 3 days to each train trip. The additional travel time would require
TC&W to increase the size of their fleet of train cars, increase their car hire costs, increase their labor
costs, and increase power costs. The BNSF would also charge a trackage right fee for use of their track.
Coal Trains
The coal trains that pass through St. Louis Park originate in Wyoming and Montana and bring coal to a
sugar plant in Renville, west of the Twin Cities. Currently, trains come from Wyoming and Montana and
travel all the way into Minneapolis using the BNSF tracks before back tracking through the Kenilworth
corridor and St. Louis Park west to the sugar plant. The empty coal trains return to Wyoming and
Montana without passing through St. Louis Park or Minneapolis. They go directly west from the sugar
plant to Appleton MN and interchange back to the BNSF line.
The loaded coals trains do not use the Appleton interchange because of track conditions on the west end
of the TC&W. A track rehabilitation project to replace cross ties on the western part of the TC&W could
allow for the reroute of the loaded coal trains and eliminate the need for the coal trains to pass through
Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. TC&W has estimated that this project would cost about two million
dollars.
Non Coal Trains
A reroute of all of TC&W’s current trains to the west would mean all TC&W trains would use the
BNSF’s Wayzata subdivision, the existing east-west tracks which pass through St Louis Park roughly
parallel to and south of Cedar Lake Road. The BNSF does not currently have a connection to the MN&S
tracks however. Therefore TC&W would not have access to the grain terminals in Savage unless the
existing wye in St Louis Park remained in place; or a new interconnection between the BNSF and the
MN&S tracks was built. TC&W has not accessed the Savage terminals in recent years but would if
market conditions change in the future. They would need to maintain their ability to access the Savage
grain terminals.
The other unit train operating in St Louis Park is the unit ethanol train that is destined for markets in the
eastern United States. Going west to connect with the BNSF before heading east on the BNSF tracks to
reach their destination does not make sense with this train. This route has the negative operational, time
and cost consequences noted above for other TC&W trains serving markets to the east.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 4
Technical Memorandum #3
February 11, 2011
Page 3
Conclusion
The TC&W has stated that the Western Connection alternative would devastate their business and would
not be workable.
There are many unknown cost variables that cannot be determined precisely at this time but could easily
increase TC&W costs by millions of dollars every year. An annual freight rate subsidy would be costly to
implement and an on-going expense without any identified source of ongoing funding.
We do not believe that this is a viable alternative except for the possibility of rerouting the coal trains.
The City, County and MnDOT should explore with TC&W ways to fund a track rehabilitation project, if
the community would like to pursue rerouting of all coal trains away from St Louis Park.
Kenilworth Corridor
Two of the four options for how to accommodate TC&W freight traffic identified for further study
involve the Kenilworth corridor. This is the current temporary home for TC&W freight rail traffic. Both
of the Kenilworth alternatives explore making it the permanent home for TC&W traffic. One option
includes just freight rail and LRT; the other option also accommodates the regional trail. The concept
plans and analysis of the Kenilworth alternatives undertaken by SEH builds on the base information from
the HDR SWLRT concept plans and the RL Banks study. The analysis of the Kenilworth corridor
alternatives is described below.
Corridor Description
The Kenilworth Corridor is currently being used by the CP/TC&W railroads and the Kenilworth bike trail
in a shared corridor. The HCRRA owns the right of way. It varies in width from 44 feet to over 150 feet.
The narrow portions of the HCRRA right of way have been identified in the past as “pinch points” with
regards to accommodating freight rail and light rail in the Kenilworth Corridor. There is a 750’ long area
just south of the Cedar Lake Channel that is 44’ wide, but has an adjacent publicly owned parcel that is
50’ wide that is owned by the City of Minneapolis. There is also another narrow parcel from Lake Street
to Cedar Lake Parkway (about 2,300’) that is 62’ wide with development on both sides. These are the
two pinch points in the corridor that are of greatest concern. While there may be other spots along the
Kenilworth corridor where small encroachments onto publicly owned parcels owned by entities other than
HCRRA maybe needed for the freight rail alternatives to work, the two “pinch points” identified above
are the most critical areas. There is very little excess right of way adjacent to the east side of the existing
corridor. The west side has several parcels that are owned by either the City of Minneapolis or the
Minneapolis Park Board.
RL Banks Study
Hennepin County hired RL Banks to conduct a study in the Fall of 2010 that addressed seven different
scenarios. Five have been previously discounted as not feasible. The two remaining scenarios are:
1. LRT, freight rail and the trail all at grade in the corridor;
2. LRT and freight rail at grade in the corridor and the trail relocated to outside of the corridor.
Scenario 1 allowed the freight, LRT and bike trail to coexist on an at grade alignment. This assumption
kept the trail in the same location and shifted the freight railroad to the north and west of the LRT. This
alignment required the acquisition of most, if not all of the Cedar Lakeshore townhomes development.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 5
Technical Memorandum #3
February 11, 2011
Page 4
The RL Banks’ cost estimate for this alternative was about $55 million dollars, including about $21
million for acquisition of right of way.
Scenario 2 allowed for the freight tracks to be relocated onto the existing trail location and the trail
relocated onto the street system south of 21st Street. Because of wider setbacks needed for the freight rail,
under this scenario, the condominium development on the east side of the Kenilworth corridor, just north
of the Mid-town Greenway would need to be acquired. The RL Banks cost estimate of this scenario was
approximately $110 million, about double the cost estimate of scenario 1. The higher cost estimate
reflects the acquisition of the condominiums on the east side of the corridor.
Design Assumptions
Analyzing the potential to accommodate LRT, freight rail and potentially the regional trail in the
Kenilworth corridor requires establishing basic design standards for each of the corridor uses. Minimum
spacing and right of way requirements are particularly key factors. This is especially true because the
adequacy of the width of the corridor has been a key concern regarding accommodating both freight rail
and LRT in the Kenilworth corridor. The question has been, is the Kenilworth corridor wide enough to
safely accommodate freight rail, LRT and the regional trail;and if not, how much additional right of way
would be needed. The analysis of the fit of these elements within the corridor is complicated by a varying
corridor width, curving right of way, location of bridge structures, grades and location of LRT stations
among many factors. Based on discussions with Hennepin County, Met Council, their consultants and
industry standards basic design assumption were developed. The following minimum spacings standards
were used for all alignments:
(1) 25’ from edge of right of way to center of freight rail track
(2) 25’ from center of freight rail track to center of nearest LRT track
(3) 14’ between the centers of the LRT tracks
(4) 12’ from center of second LRT track to edge of paved trail
(5) 16’ of paved trail
(6) 2’ between paved trail and edge of right-of-way.
Essentially these spacing assumptions mean you need a minimum corridor width, without accommodating
for any special circumstances, of 94 feet to accommodate LRT, freight rail and the regional trail at grade.
If only LRT and freight rail are accommodated in the corridor, a minimum width of 76 feet is needed.
SEH Analysis
In our analysis we explored 3 potential refinements to the RL Banks’ Kenilworth scenarios. They are:
1) Retaining the Current Rail Alignment -The designing the LRT around the existing freight
alignment. Essentially leaving the freight track in its existing position.
2) Scenario 1A - Revise the LRT, freight tracks and the trail alignments to best fit all in the Corridor
3) Scenario 2A - Revise the LRT and freight track alignments and relocate the trail off of the
Corridor.
We also assumed that the revised LRT track alignment would need to match the LRT alignments at the
Lake Street bridge and at the I-394 bridge. We also tried to minimize the impact to the proposed station
locations.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 6
Technical Memorandum #3
February 11, 2011
Page 5
The SEH refinements are detailed below:
Retaining the Current Rail Alignment. The first concept explored was to leave the freight rail track on
the existing alignment, and adjust the LRT and trail alignments around it. The RL Banks analysis had
done the reverse. It assumed the proposed LRT alignment as a given and located the freight rail in
accommodation of LRT. Our approach was intended to explore if there was any benefit from
designing a corridor alignment starting with the current freight rail alignment as fixed. The current
freight rail location is very close to the west right of way line and the Cedar Lake ShoresTownhomes
in the 62 foot “pinch point” immediately north of the Midtown Greenway connection to Kenilworth.
The thought was that starting with the existing freight rail alignment as a given may result in a very
efficient use of the limited space at this point in the corridor. This did not turn out to be the case. This
approach resulted in the LRT tracks being shifted into the high rise condominium located on the east
side of the track, at the Midtown Greenway. This is one of the most intensely developed parcels
along the corridor. This was determined to be an unfeasible alignment due to the complexity and
costs involved with the acquisition and use of this parcel for right of way.
Scenario 1A . The second concept explored assumed the alignments of all three elements in the
corridor, the LRT, freight rail and the regional trail were flexible. The alignment of each element
could be adjusted to minimize the additional right of way required. The results of the analysis of
Scenario 1A were similar to the results of the analysis of Scenario 1 in the RL Banks study. To
accommodate all three corridor components at grade requires extensive right of way acquisition.
Roughly half the Cedar Shores Townhome structures would be affected. The design also indicates
that the apartment building at 2601 Sunset Boulevard would be impacted. Burnham Road north of
Cedar Lake Parkway will also need to be realigned and there is a high potential that partial acquisition
from some parcels on the west side of Burnham Road would be needed. Our preliminary cost
estimates for Scenario 1A are $60 to $65 million dollars including only a partial taking of the Cedar
Lake Shores Townhomes. If all of the Cedar Lake Shores townhome development is acquired, the
cost estimate would increase by another $13 million dollars.
Scenario 2A. This alignment concept, similar to RL Banks Scenario 2, assumed only the LRT and
freight rail in the corridor. The trail would be relocated outside the corridor. Our analysis (See
Appendix A) assumed that the freight railroad stays on the north and west sides of the corridor. The
deletion of the trail allows enough space for the freight and LRT tracks to fit in the corridor and meet
the minimum design standards, if land is acquired from the Cedar Lake Shores townhomes
development. This concept uses Cedar Lake Shores Town Homes’ green space, located between the
town home structures and the HCRRA property, to expand the right of way for the freight rail tracks.
Under this alignment concept, land but no structures, would need to be acquired from Cedar Lake
Shores to meet the minimum spacing design standards for freight rail and LRT in Kenilworth
corridor.
While technically, the minimum design standard of 25’ of space between the edge of right of way and
the center line of the freight rail track can be met by acquiring land from the Cedar Lake Townhomes,
the result is a loss of setback area and green space for the townhomes. The resulting setback between
the town home structures and their property line with HCRRA would be as little as 2 feet; and, would
vary from 2 to 24 feet. Most of the town home property line setbacks would be less than 10 feet.
Under the Scenario 2A alignment, the train tracks themselves would generally move closer to the
Cedar Lake Shores town homes than they are today. Under existing conditions the freight rail tracks
are as close as 25 feet from the Cedar Lake Shores structures and as far away as 57 ft. Under the
Scenario 2A alignment 2/3’s of the 13 townhomes adjacent to the freight rail tracks, would be closer
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 7
Technical Memorandum #3
February 11, 2011
Page 6
to the tracks under the new alignment than they are today; most closer by 12 feet or more. The
distance between the town home structures and the center line of the new freight rail tracks would be
from 27 to 49 feet.
SEH believes the Scenario 2A freight track alignment would result in freight train traffic being
uncomfortably close to the townhome structures. (See Appendix B). While the 25 foot minimum
spacing from the center line of the tracks to the right of line would be met, there would be very little
space between the right of way line to actual dwellings. A minimum setback from the track center
line to the right of way line assumes that there is also an adequate setback from the right of way line
to any structure, especially habitable structures. A setback area between the right of way line and
structures provides an additional margin for safety for the uses adjacent to the railroad tracks.
Precisely how much distance is needed between structures and railroad tracks depends on the
circumstances of the specific situation. For residential structures like town homes 50 feet is an
appropriate separation. If a 50 ft standard is used for the separation of a residential structure from the
center line of a freight rail track, 13 of the Cedar Lake Shores town homes are too close to the tracks
under the Scenario 1a alignment. To meet a 50 ft residential structure separation from freight rail
tracks these town homes would need to be removed.
Regarding the regional trail, it could remain in the corridor in place from the Penn Street LRT station
to just south of the Burnham Road overpass. At that point the HCRRA right of way narrows and the
trail would need to leave the Kenilworth corridor unless additional right of way was acquired. The
trail could be routed onto the local streets at Burnham road. Additional study would be needed to
determine the preferred location of the trail.
Our estimated cost for this scenario would be about $30 million plus right of way costs which
depending upon how much of the Cedar Lakeshore townhome development is purchased; and, how
acquisition of the parcels owned by the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park Board are
handled, could add between $5 million and $35 million to the total cost.
Unresolved Issues
There are several issues unrelated to literally the alignment or fit of freight, LRT and the trail in the
Kenilworth corridor that would need to be evaluated and resolved before a final determination can be
made if freight, LRT and trails can coexist in the Kenilworth Corridor. They include:
1. The environmental impact to parkland property including the Cedar Lake Channel, Cedar Lake
Parkway crossing, of adding freight rail into the corridor as a permanent element.
2. Where the LRT tracks will cross the freight rail within the SW corridor.
3. How does the freight rail and LRT impact the Highway 100 bridge design?
4. What is the best location for the relocated trail? Right now the SWLRT plans show the regional
trail is on the north side of the LRT west of Wooddale and the south side east of Wooddale.
5. The impact to the draft SW LRT EIS and would it need to be amended.
6. How much of the Cedar Lakeshore townhome development would be acquired.
7. How does the freight rail adjacent to the LRT affect the operation, design and success of the LRT
stations
8. How would the freight rail in Kenilworth affect the opportunity for trolley service on the
Midtown Greenway?
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 8
Technical Memorandum #3
February 11, 2011
Page 7
Conclusions/Next Steps
A final evaluation of the Kenilworth Corridor issues would need to be done relative to the MN&S sub
alignment study. Understanding the impacts and costs, mitigation and actual concept plan proposed for
MN&S will be needed to evaluate the relative merits for community of each of the alternative resolutions
to the TC&W freight rail question.
The intent of this memorandum is to provide some additional information as SEH has examined the
remaining four alternatives. SEH will provide future updates as more information is developed and
refined.
dmm
c:\tempfiles\stlouispark\seh memo3 020911revised.docx
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 9
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Freight Rail OptionsPage 10
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 11
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 12
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 13
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 14
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 15
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 16
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 17
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Freight Rail OptionsPage 18
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Freight Rail Options Page 19
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Human Rights Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2011 Work Plan and 2010
Annual Report prepared by the Human Rights Commission (HRC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the HRC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
Does the City Council wish to meet with the HRC to discuss the annual report and work plan?
BACKGROUND:
Per Council policy the 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan are being submitted for Council
review at the February 14 study session. If the Council would like to meet with the HRC to
discuss these items a meeting will be scheduled for a future study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Human Rights Commission 2010 Annual Report
Human Rights Commission 2011 Work Plan
Diversity Lens Brochure
Human Rights Commission Brochure
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission
2010 Annual Report
The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall
be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights
and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The commission
assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and
respect for all of its citizens.
Community Involvement: In 2010 the Human Rights Commission partnered with Bookmark in
the Park to host an author event. The 2010 Bookmark in the Park theme was Inclusion and one
of the selected books was “The Latehomecomer” by Kao Kalia Yang. Bookmark in the Park
volunteers asked the HRC to partner with them on planning, organizing, and promoting this
event. It was a very successful event and a great opportunity for the HRC. HRC brochures, the
Diversity Lens, and other handouts were available at the event and Stuart Morgan gave a brief
welcome and overview of the Human Rights Commission.
Many Human Rights Commissioners also participated in their own National Night Out events
and distributed brochures and the Diversity Lens magnet at their NNO parties.
Vision: An ongoing project for the HRC has been to examine the Diversity section of Vision St.
Louis Park and develop goals/recommendations for actions. The Diversity Lens Magnet, created
with input from the HRC and city staff, was available in 2009. Continuing from 2009, a
subcommittee worked on creating a brochure to accompany the Diversity Lens. The brochure
explains the purpose for the lens and how it can be used by the community. (See attached
brochure)
HRC Updated Brochure: The subcommittee that worked on developing the Diversity Lens
brochure also updated the Human Rights Commission brochure with help from the IR
department. (See attached brochure)
Human Rights Award: Each year, the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission coordinates
an award to honor individuals that contribute to increasing understanding and cooperation
between people of different backgrounds. The 2010 Human Rights Award winners were “The
Inside Look” and Sharon and Neil Anderson. “The Inside Look” is made up of 20 St. Louis Park
High School students and was selected for their innovative talk show, created by the students,
that addresses social issues that affect high school students such as racial stereotyping and
interracial dating. Sharon and Neil Anderson were selected for their many years of service and
dedication to the St. Louis Park community and their lifelong commitment to promoting human
rights.
Bias/Hate Crimes: The HRC reviews all Bias/Hate Crimes and responds to the victims with a
letter and HRC brochure when appropriate. The HRC was notified of the following Bias/Hate
Crimes in 2010.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Offense Date Police Case # Summary
4/10/10 10001844 Damage to Property and Harassment – victim believed this
was racially motivated.
4/28/10 10002134 Damage to Property – Graffiti on Picnic Shelter included a
swastika.
6/14/10 10003138 Harassing text message received on mobile phone. Sender’s
phone was disconnected when police tried to make contact.
7/12/10 10003756 Aggravated Harassment – victim received a series of
harassing phone calls at his business.
9/6/10 10004964 Disorderly conduct/bias motivated – verbal argument between
an employee and customer. Victim felt this was a bias
offense.
9/11/10 10005028 Assault – victim believed this was a bias offense. Neither
party wanted charges pressed.
Domestic Partner Registry: The City Council began discussing a voluntary program for
domestic partner registration in November 2010. In Minnesota, the following cities have a
registration program for domestic partners: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, Edina,
Maplewood and Golden Valley. The City Council directed staff to forward this issue to the
Human Rights Commission for consideration and make a recommendation to the Council. The
HRC reviewed the voluntary program at the December 21, 2010 HRC meeting. All members
present at the meeting except one strongly supported the ordinance at the local level. One
commissioner stated that this appears to be a state issue, not a local issue, and should be handled
at that level.
A motion was approved to inform the Council that the HRC supports the City Council pursuing a
domestic partner voluntary registration program and the HRC would also like the Council to
consider sending a resolution to the State of Minnesota regarding this issue.
Commissioner Update: In 2010, the HRC had two commissioners step down because of
conflicts that prevented them from regularly attending the meetings. Three additional
commissioner’s terms expired December 31, 2010 and these commissioners did not seek
reappointment.
As required in City Code section 2-212, the HRC shall consist of 11 regular members and two
youth members for a total of 13 commissioners. Staff would like to discuss with Council the
possibility of reducing the number of commissioners on the HRC since it is difficult to maintain
full membership in the commission.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Human Rights Commission
2011 Work Plan
Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its
efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in
cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
HRC Participation in Community Events:
• In 2011, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in many existing community
events including:
o Children First Ice Cream Social
o Community Open House
o National Night Out
o Other events as appropriate
• Identify human rights and diversity events that are available to the residents of St.
Louis Park in the metro area. Rather than duplicating efforts that already exist, find
ways to notify our residents of these events such as through the use of an HRC
webpage.
• Diversity Film – part of a multi year film series.
Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens
• Use the Diversity Lens as a tool to make connections with local agencies, organizations,
etc. HRC members present the Diversity Lens which will give these organizations a tool
and reminder to incorporate diversity into their events.
o Create a website for the HRC to promote the use of the Diversity Lens.
o Compile a list of agencies/organizations to approach to share the Diversity Lens.
o Create a list of activities that are going on in SLP that we could participate in or
talk to the planning committee about the Diversity Lens
Connecting with our community and surrounding communities
• Continue to build a better connection with the Adult Education and ELL Programs.
• Partner with the Police Advisory Commission and Community Education/ELL Programs
to create a Citizen’s Academy for immigrants and new Americans.
• Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions
Ongoing Commission Work
• Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
• Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park
• Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate.
The photos in this publication are part of a 2007 community-
building project called Our Town: Faces & Places. Coordinated
by St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts.
Photographers: Sarah Anderson, Adjo Habia, Ruth Rassmussen,
Kitty Rigers, Sherm Stanch, Aryeh Schwartz, Marcie Murray,
Rahal Aynalem, Sandy Beach, Gilda Houck-Markovits
DIV RES TYI
What Does
Look Like in St. Louis Park?
The Human Rights Commission is a 13-member advisory
commission to the St. Louis Park City Council. Twelve
members are appointed by the City Council, including two
youth members with full voting rights, and one member
appointed by the St. Louis Park School Board
Experience LIFE in the Park
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 5
GENDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AGE PHYSICAL ABIL IT IES RELIGIOUS BELIE FS POLITICAL BELIEFS NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS WORKPLACES RACE GENDER
GENDER SEXUAL ORIENTATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AGE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKPLACES RACE ETHNICITY PHYSICAL ABILITIES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS POLITICAL BELIEFS GENDERThe concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It
means understanding that each individual is unique, and recogniz-
ing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions
of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic
status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs,
or other ideologies.
It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and
nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and
moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the
rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.
Led by the members of the city’s Human
Rights Commission, the City of St. Louis Park
actively engages varied social, economic, re-
ligious and ethnic heritages through a variety
of activities, initiatives and programs.
The Diversity Lens initiative was created by the Human Rights
Commission to facilitate respect for diversity and the various world
views represented by the citizens of St. Louis Park. Through open
education, information dissemination and community interaction
the initiative encourages each resident, business, city official, staff
member, and visitor to appreciate that each person has developed
a unique lens through which they view the world.
We hope you use the Diversity Lens as a reminder of the differences that make us
unique, to start courageous conversations, and to instill in others the values of diversity.
Valuing individual diversity means reaching
beyond stereotypical views of individuals and
using the strengths and different perspectives
that each person offers. The diversity lens,
therefore, is not just a reflection of you or
me, but the collective us in our community
and all of our values.
A Commitment To Diversity
What is the Diversity Lens?
Our Mission
Diversity & Perspective
RESPECT. REFLECT. INCLUDE. INVITE. VALUE.
For more information visit:
www.stlouispark.org/boards-commissions/human-rights-commission.html
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 6
Sex Religion Marital Status
Age Disability Familial Status
Race National Origin Local HRC Activity
Color Public Assistance
Creed Sexual Orientation
PROTECTED CLASSESAREAS OF PROTECTION
Credit Employment
Housing Public Services
Business Public Accommodation
Education
The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission is dedicated to assisting residents
in their understanding of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
• Refer, assist and report incidents of dis-
crimination or harassment in
St. Louis Park to the state
WHAT WE DO FOR YOU
• Promote acceptance and respect for all
• Share insights and experiences
• Participate in cultural diversity activities
• Report hate crimes and discrimination
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Your Human Rights Commission is here to
support you in the following ways:
• Support St. Louis Park schools’ human
rights/diversity programs for our youth
and our educators
• Affirm, celebrate and educate all residents
on the rich diversity within St. Louis Park
WHERE TO CALL
The photos in this publication are part of a 2007
community-building project called Our Town:
Faces & Places. Coordinated by St. Louis Park
Friends of the Arts.
Photographers: Adjo Habia, Sarah Anderson,
Ruth Rassmussen
Report A Crime
(952) 924-2618
Call the St. Louis Park Police if you are
the victim of or witness to a hate crime.
A bias or hate crime is criminal conduct
committed because of the victim’s actual
or perceived race, color, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, age or
disability.
Question or Concern
(952)-924-2506
The St. Louis Park Human Rights
Commission may offer community sup-
port at the request of crime victims, as
outlined in the city’s Bias/Hate Crime
Response Plan. Please call the commission
referral line for additional information
regarding Human Rights in St. Louis Park
and other support organizations.
Report Discrimination
(651) 296-5663
Call the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights to report an incident of
discrimination or to request information
about human rights protections in our
state.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 7
City of St. Louis ParkHuman Rights Commission5005 Minnetonka Blvd.St. Louis Park, MN 55416St. Louis Park
Human Rights
Commission
Experience LIFE in the Park
The Diversity Lens initiative was created by the
Human Rights Commission to facilitate respect for
diversity and the various world views represented by
the citizens of St. Louis Park.
Through open education, information dissemination, and
community interaction the initiative encourages all resi-
dents, businesses, city officials, staff members, and visitors
to appreciate that each person has developed a unique lens
through which they view the world.
www.stlouispark.org/
boards-commissions/
human-rights-commission.html
WHO WE ARE
The Human Rights Commission is a 13-mem-
ber advisory commission to the St. Louis Park
City Council. Twelve members are appointed
by the City Council, including two youth mem-
bers with full voting rights, and one member
appointed by the St. Louis Park School Board.
OUR MISSION
The Purpose of the Human Rights Commis-
sion shall be to advise the City Council in its
efforts to ensure all residents protection of
their rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community.
The Commission assists individuals and groups
in cultivating a community that embraces
principles of equity and respect for all of its
citizens.
JOIN US
The Human Rights Commission meets on the
third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. at City
Hall. The Commission welcomes all commu-
nity members at its meetings.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan Page 8
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2010 Annual Report and 2011
Work Plan prepared by the Police Advisory Commission (PAC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the PAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
Does the City Council wish to meet with the PAC to discuss the annual report and work plan?
BACKGROUND:
Per Council policy the 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan are being submitted for Council
review at the February 14 study session. If the Council would like to meet with the PAC to
discuss these items a meeting will be scheduled for a future study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: PAC 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
Police Advisory Commission
2010 Annual Report
The Police Advisory Commission mission: There are several main purposes of the PAC. They
include the following:
1) Enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services.
2) Provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services.
3) Promote exchange between the police department and the community.
In partnership with the Human Rights Commissioners, several PAC Commissioners staffed a
booth at the Children First Ice Cream Social. Commissioners designed and made available
informative pamphlets to the public about Traffic Safety (cut-through traffic, speeding…) and
Current Road Construction Projects; also available were child and bike safety guides and
information regarding the police department. Furthermore, this function allowed these
commissioners an opportunity to get to know one other and the activities of each Commission.
In an effort to work more closely with the Human Rights Commission on police related issues,
Commissioners Pat Swiderski, Alexa Cushman, and Rashmi Seneviratine attended the Human
Rights Commission meetings. Commissioner Swiderski participates in Human Rights
Commission activities and is encouraging their Commissioners to participate in Police Advisory
Commission activities. In partnership these two Commissions are making progress in developing
a program similar to the Citizen’s Academy which will be geared towards an immigrant
population group. This will be designed to hopefully bridge an existing gap in our immigrants
understanding of police procedures.
Several Commissioners were involved with the Department’s National Night Out.
Commissioners rode with officers to block parties and also helped organize or host block parties
in their neighborhood.
Commissioner Widmer has been attending the city staff Traffic Advisory Meetings. The Traffic
Advisory group is comprised of members of the Public Works, Community Development, and
Police Departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic related issues within the
community. Commissioner Widmer actively provides citizen input on traffic related issues and
street projects.
To go along with last year’s bike safety awareness videos, PAC members have assisted in
content development and format of the production of several Public Service Announcement
videos were aired on the Inside the Park Community Television and at other times throughout
the day on local cable access channel. These videos are designed to bring heightened awareness
to community members of police related matters. We are pursuing ways to bring this information
to the community via various media avenues.
Commissioner Cushman and Hoffman have worked closely with Cornerstone in creating a
Domestic Violence Education and Information program which will be distributed in multiple
public areas within the city. We believe this will enhance the relationship between the city and
Cornerstone and provide information on valuable resources which are available.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan
The Fourth Annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf Tournament was held on
September 10th, 2010. It was another successful year, earning $3,317.31 dollars for the Crime
Prevention Fund. The goal of the tournament is to bring the business community together with
the police department for a day of fun and recreation, and to raise funds for the Crime Prevention
Fund. We would not be able to do this without the support of our local businesses. PAC will
continue with this effort in 2011 and plan to publicize the event in early 2011. Your participation
and promotion is welcomed.
The sixth Citizen’s Academy was offered in early 2010. Thirteen community members
completed the 2010 Academy. Public reaction to this series of classes is always positive and it
allows the public to connect with and learn more about the Police Department. Commissioners
assisted Officer Czapar with welcoming participants at the first class session and were present
for the graduation ceremony.
2011 Work Plan
The 2011 work plan for the PAC is as follows:
• Continue to support and attend the Children First Ice Cream Social, City Open House,
and National Night Out with the goal of providing information to the public about the
police department and the commission
• Work with the HRC on producing a program geared to immigrant populations which
would be an abbreviated version of the Citizen’s Academy. The PAC goal would be to
provide information regarding what to expect when stopped by a police officer,
interacting with officers, and access to domestic violence programs.
• Produce quarterly public safety information programs for the Inside the Park Community
TV or other media streams
• Continue the Annual St. Louis Park Police Department Crime Prevention Crime Fund
Golf Tournament, with the goal of increasing participation
• Complete the Domestic Violence Awareness and Assistance project
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report summarizes the BOZA work in 2010. The report highlights the number and type of
applications processed in 2010. It is attached for your review and comment.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Are the actions of BOZA in keeping with the expectations of the City Council?
• Does the City Council wish to meet with BOZA to discuss their annual report?
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Zoning Appeals acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council. BOZA may hear
and make recommendations on matters referred to them or as required under the Zoning
Ordinance. The Board hears and decides on variances to be granted in regard to the Zoning
Ordinance and other applicable State laws. The Board may also hear and decide on appeals from
any order, requirement, permit decision, refusal, or determination from the Zoning Administer or
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendations, reports, and records from the Board
are communicated to the City Council. The Board consists of five regular members and meets the
fourth Thursday of every month at 6:00 p.m.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Careful consideration of variance requests and zoning interpretations are a step toward achieving
our vision; being good environmental stewards, providing a well-maintained housing stock and
increasing and strengthening neighborhoods.
Attachments: 2010 BOZA Annual Report
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning &Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
2010 Annual Report
Board of Zoning Appeals Commission Members
Henry Solmer, Chair
Ryan Burt, Vice-Chair
Paul Roberts, Board Member
James Gainsley, Board Member
Susan Bloyer, Board Member
Gary Morrison, Staff Liaison
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) established:
Section 2-301 – 305 of the City Code establishes the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Membership:
The Board consists of five regular members appointed by the City Council for three-year terms.
The members of the board are to be qualified voters and residents of the city.
A staff liaison to the Board is appointed by the City Manager. The staff liaison is the Assistant
Zoning Administrator, Gary Morrison.
Meetings:
The Board meets once a month, at 6 pm on the fourth Thursday of the month.
Powers and duties.
The responsibilities of the BOZA include:
(1) Hear and decide on appeals from any order, requirement, permit decision or refusal or
determination made by the zoning administrator under the zoning chapter and from any
interpretation of the text of the zoning chapter, or any location of the boundary of a
zoning district as shown on the official zoning map made by the zoning administrator,
in accordance with all requirements of local and state laws.
(2) Hear and decide on requests for variances from the terms of the zoning chapter in the
manner and subject to the standards and requirements set forth in the zoning chapter
and applicable state laws.
(3) Communicate with the City Council its recommendations, records of proceedings and
any other method of reporting as may be deemed appropriate by the city council.
(4) Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and hear and make recommendations to
the City Council on all matters referred to the board or upon which it is required to act
under the zoning chapter.
Decision subject to appeal to the City Council.
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the BOZA may appeal the decision to the City Council. The
appeal must be filed with the planning department within ten days of issuance of the BOZA
decision.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
The BOZA approved one variance, and denied one variance. No decisions were appealed to the
City Council.
The following is a summary of the variances applied for since 2006.
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
RESIDENTIAL
Setbacks Attached Garages:
Interior side setback: 2 0 1 2 1
rear setback: 2 0 3 0 1
side yard abutting the street setback: 1 0 3 0 0
Living Space:
front setback: 1 0 0 0 0
Interior side setback: 2 1 1 0 0
side yard abutting the street setback: 1 0 0
Covered Porch:
front setback: 1 0 0 0 0
Eave (side setback): 2 3 0 0 0
Deck:
Interior side setback: 0 1 0 0 0
Miscellaneous: 0 0 2 0 0
Open Lot Area (1) Living Space: 1 0 0 0 0
Attached Garage: 1 0 0 0 0
No Build Area (2) Attached Garage 3 0 0 0 0
Gravel Driveway 1 0 0 0 0
Total Residential Variances: 17 5 11 2 2
COMMERCIAL
rear setback: 1 0 0 0 0
front setback: 0 1 0 0 0
side yard abutting the street: 1 0 1 0 0
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 1 0 0 0 0
Parking spaces: 1 0 0 0 0
Restaurant to Residential setback: 2 0 0 0 0
Bufferyard: 1 0 0 0 0
Expand a non-conformity 0 0 1 0 0
Increase total sign area 0 0 0 0 1
Total Commercial Variances: 7 1 2 0 1
Total Variances: 24 6 13 2 3
(1) A 20 foot by 20 foot or 20 foot by 30 foot open area in the back yard. This
requirement was removed in 2006.
(2) Open area required when a back yard is adjacent to a neighbor's front yard.
APPEAL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0
COMMERCIAL 0 1 0 0 1
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
Jason and Aryel Londer – 3541 Glenhurst Ave S.
BOZA Date: April 22, 2010
Continued date: May 11, 2010
Request: Three Variances:
1. A 1 foot, 6 inch variance to the required 5-
foot side yard for a proposed attached
garage.
2. A 7 foot, 9 inch variance to the required
25-foot rear yard for a proposed attached
garage.
BOZA Action:
The BOZA denied both requested variances.
The applicants argued that there is a grade
change in the area of the proposed garage that made it difficult to construct a detached garage that
met all required setbacks and minimum required distance from the house. The BOZA determined
that the grade change was not significant enough to warrant a variance, that economic
considerations, such as the additional cost to correct the grade cannot, by itself, warrant a variance,
and that the variance was not needed to preserve a substantial property right, as a detached two-car
garage is common for the neighborhood and can be done at this property without a variance.
The applicant began the process to appeal the decision to the Council, however they withdrew the
application before the Council could hear the appeal. So the BOZA decision to deny the variances
stands.
Before Photograph:
After Photograph:
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
Duke Realty Corporation - 1600 Utica Avenue S.
BOZA Date: February 25, 2010
Request: A variance to allow up to 1,000
square feet of signage instead of the
maximum 500 square feet.
BOZA Action: Approved the request
resulting in a maximum of 1,000 square feet
of signage allowed, with the condition that
each tower cannot exceed 500 square feet of
signage.
This property is unique in that it is the only
one in the city improved with two separate
office towers. The ordinance allows up to
500 square feet of signage per parcel (not per
tower). That means this property by ordinance gets only 250 square feet per tower while all other
towers in the city get 500 square feet. The variance, with the condition, allows each tower to have
the same amount of signage that is allowed for all other similar sized towers in the city.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2010 Annual Report
JJ Beske Holdings, LLC - 1600 Utica Avenue S.
BOZA Date: August 26, 2010
Request: An appeal of staff’s
determination that a U-Haul rental
facility is allowed in the C-2 District
by Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
only.
BOZA Action: The BOZA denied the
appeal, ruling that staff correctly
interpreted the ordinance that a U-
Haul rental facility is allowed in the
C-2 District by CUP only.
Background:
The business owner applied for a CUP several months after opening. The CUP was heard by the
Planning Commission and the City Council; the BOZA did not hear the CUP. The CUP was
denied by the City Council, and after it was denied, the business owner appealed to the BOZA
staff’s interpretation that a CUP was required. They tried to argue that the rental facility was a
permitted use in the C-2 District as either a parking lot or outdoor sales, neither of which requires
a CUP. As noted above, the BOZA upheld staff’s interpretation that a CUP is required to operate
a U-Haul rental facility.
Result of BOZA decision:
The U-Haul business ceased operation as a result of the denied CUP and the BOZA ruling to
uphold staff’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance.
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Citizen Notification System Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The purpose of this report is to update Council on a study and analysis
conducted over the last 8 months regarding the possible adoption and implementation of a
Citizen Notification System in St. Louis Park Unless Council has concerns, staff intends on
moving forward to implement a citizen notification system, utilize its business and staff
notification components, and explore collaboration opportunities with the School District to
determine whether one notification system can be utilized in St. Louis Park in a more efficient
and cost-effective manner. The goal would be to have the system up and running prior to the
2011 – 2012 snow season.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council have questions or concerns regarding the implementation of a Citizen Notification
System in St. Louis Park?
Please note that a specific policy regarding the use of the system will be brought back to the
Council for review and approval.
BACKGROUND:
As background, it may be helpful to briefly describe the reasons behind and functions of citizen
notification systems.
Citizens rely on local governments to keep them informed of everything from street closures to
natural disasters. Detailed plans for Continuity of Government (COG) and Continuity of
Operations (COOP) are now capabilities expected of government. By using citizen notification
systems, organizations can help safeguard the health and welfare of citizens, prevent panic, and
mobilize first responders to a higher state of readiness with a minimal number of systems. Such
systems enable communications to internal groups, citizens, businesses, and other organizations
in minutes via mobile phones, landlines, email, text messaging, instant messaging, pagers, and
more. In addition, citizen notification systems provide a very cost-effective way to notify
neighborhoods or the entire city of non-emergency situations, such as a road detour or parking
ban (e.g. the recent request for voluntary parking restrictions on residential streets is a good
example).
Citizen Notification Systems obviously must know whom to notify for various types of events.
There are three main sources of people to notify:
• 9-1-1 Directory: Used by Dispatch, and use of this list of phone numbers for citizen
notification is generally restricted to major emergencies.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Citizen Notification System Update
• White Pages: Provided by the telephone company and where people choose to have their
phone numbers listed in shared directories.
• Individual Subscriber: Where people sign up on line for notifications by types of event,
addresses about which to receive notifications, delivery methods, and preferred order of
notification. This is especially important in a world where cell phones, smart phones, and
email are increasingly dominant desired forms of communications.
The system under consideration for St. Louis Park includes these methods and some additional
features. Citizens, businesses, and staff are able to be notified quickly and easily of various
events and according to their preference and priority. For example, some people may choose to
be advised of certain events on their cell phone and be notified of other lower priority events or
issues by email or text message.
CITIZEN NOTIFICATION IN ST. LOUIS PARK
For several years, St. Louis Park ISD #283 has operated a notification system whereby parents
receive a phone call notification of various events occurring at one or more School buildings.
These events tend to be considered various degrees of an emergency or an important matter, and
parents are either called to action or simply informed. The City of St. Louis Park currently does
not have in place a similar notification system for citizens and businesses. Some cities, including
some in the Twin Cities metro, employ citizen notification systems very selectively and for
major emergencies only. Other metro area cities use such a system most frequently for informing
people of the declaration of snow emergencies.
Beginning in the summer of 2010, six LOGIS-member cities (including St. Louis Park) began
exploring citizen notification systems, developed an RFP, interviewed three top suppliers of
these systems, and invited the preferred supplier to return in February 2011 to demonstrate its
product to a broader audience of approximately 50 people at a meeting in Maple Grove. The
preferred supplier, Everbridge, was selected because of its apparent superior combination of
multiple delivery methods, affordability, and business model to support both emergency and
non-emergency notifications, as well as multi-level and multi-jurisdictional organizations. The
cost effectiveness for both emergency and non-emergency notifications, driven largely by the
prospect of serving multiple cities through LOGIS, was apparent when comparing against the
two other providers.
In addition to the Fire and Information Resources staff from St. Louis Park who attended and
responded positively to the February demo, other departments that have expressed interest in
utilizing such a system include:
Police: crime alerts (in some cases), neighborhood emergencies, parking bans, and lost children.
Public Works: parking bans or road detours, such as along Highway 7 at Louisiana Avenue.
Parks and Recreation: if we had a major problem with the aquatic park, we could use it to notify
the public that we are closed for the day.
It should also be noted that the City and School District have met and determined there is merit
in exploring one shared citizen notification system given the shared boundaries and audiences of
the two organizations. In addition to being cost-effective, this also has the potential to present a
more integrated approach to overlapping constituencies.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Citizen Notification System Update
Finally, adjoining cities that use that use the Everbridge tool could simultaneously notify affected
residents and businesses of an event at the municipal borders. For example, a major chemical
spill event on I-394 or Highway 169 could potentially affect folks in St. Louis Park, Golden
Valley, Minnetonka, and Plymouth. Minnetonka and Golden Valley are among other cities also
considering subscribing to Everbridge.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The anticipated first-year cost to utilize the Everbridge citizen notification system is $0.75 per
household / business / employee for unlimited emergency and non-emergency use. The second
and subsequent year cost is $0.65 per household / business / employee for unlimited emergency
and non-emergency use. This equates to a maximum of approximately $18,750 in year 1 and
$16,250 per year thereafter. That assumes all residents, businesses, and City employees actively
participate. The current Capital Improvement Program includes a budgeted amount of $15,000
per year for this communication mechanism, so some slight adjustment may be necessary.
In addition, it should be noted that two other “communication for pay services” utilized by St.
Louis Park were changed in 2011: the GovDelivery email notification service was eliminated,
saving $5,200 per year and the Implex web streaming / video-on-demand service at
approximately $18,000 per year was replaced. Note that replacement and enhanced web
streaming and video on demand continue to be seamlessly available through the city’s
membership in LOGIS’s network services at no additional cost, saving $18,000 annually. Also
note that the Everbridge citizen notification service in effect restores the option residents had
through GovDelivery to once again receive messages about topics such as parking bans by email,
in addition to many other delivery methods.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The use of a more robust Citizen Notification System is consistent with the City Council’s
Strategic Direction being committed to be a connected and engaged community.
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
“Dream Elevator” Public Art Sculpture - W. 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the status of the public art process for
the West 36th Street corridor and in particular the public art project at the southeast corner of
W36th St and Wooddale Ave. No action is required by the City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns with continuing with the public art project
proposed at the corner of W36th St and Wooddale Ave?
BACKGROUND:
In September of 2006, staff outlined a process to the City Council to select artists for public art
projects in the W. 36th Street corridor. Two projects were commissioned: the W. 36th Street
streetscape and a sculpture at the southeast corner of W. 36th and Wooddale Ave. Consultant,
Jack Becker from Forecast Public Artworks, sent out request for proposals to their artist data
base. Jack Becker also helped to facilitate the interview and review process. A committee made
up of developers, staff, a neighborhood representative, a landscape architect, Friends of the Arts
representative, and Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission member reviewed the references
and ideas submitted by the artists and made a selection. The streetscape art was completed in the
fall of 2010 by the artist, Marjorie Pitz. The sculpture at the corner of W. 36th and Wooddale did
not proceed at the same time because the developer, Rottland Homes, withdrew from the private
redevelopment project at this same location. The plan was to construct the sculpture in a plaza at
this corner in conjunction with the private redevelopment project.
PROJECT UPDATE:
There were 24 artists who were interested in designing art for the proposed plaza area at the
subject corner. Randy Walker is the artist who was selected by the committee. The City
commissioned him to design the plans for his sculpture called “Dream Elevator”.
Mr. Walker designed the piece for the City of St. Louis Park because he believes that this is a
City where bold, innovative dreams take shape. He indicated, “The spirit of dreaming big,
powerful visions is part of the City’s history and is alive today”. His sculpture, which he named
the “Dream Elevator”, makes a connection with local history by using a cylindrical feature
similar to the Peavey-Haglin Experimental Grain Elevator The grain elevator was the first
cylindrical concrete grain elevator in North America and is now part of Nordic Ware.
“Dream Elevator” is a 44-foot transparent tower that has vibrant colored threads that are woven
through the inside of the feature. The color changes from day to night as does the viewer’s
experience. Mr. Walker developed a model of the sculpture which is available if the new Council
members wish to see it.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: “Dream Elevator” Public Art Sculpture - W. 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue
TIMELINES:
Wooddale Pointe, the five story senior housing/mixed-use project to be built by Greco
Development at W. 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue will provide the backdrop for the “Dream
Elevator”. The development was approved on November 16, 2009 by the City Council and a
redevelopment contract with Greco Development was approved June 7, 2010. After unforeseen
delays, Greco anticipates receiving a HUD commitment for financing this spring and expects to
close on the property 60-90 days later. Ground breaking for the redevelopment is expected in the
summer of 2011 with completion in 2012. The construction of the Dream Elevator would be
coordinated with the construction of the redevelopment project. Staff will meet with Randy
Walker next month to discuss the logistics of entering into the construction and installation of his
sculpture which is the final phase of the public art process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The public art process and artist selection is being paid for out of the Development Fund. The
construction and installation of the public art is largely being paid by the developers or from
previous public art contributions made by developers to the City.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This public art project is consistent with the City Council’s adopted Strategic Direction - St.
Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in
all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Image of Dream Elevator
Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: “Dream Elevator” Public Art Sculpture - W. 36th Street and Wooddale AvenuePage 3
Meeting Date: February 14, 2011
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2011 Liquor License Renewal - Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information
regarding the liquor license renewal application of Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill
scheduled for consideration at the February 22, 2011 City Council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council agree with the conditions proposed by staff for renewal of the Toby Keith’s I Love
This Bar liquor license? Please let staff know of any thoughts, questions or concerns that you
might have with staffs proposed approach.
BACKGROUND:
The City received the renewal application from CRGE Minneapolis LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I
Love This Bar & Grill, 1623 Park Place Blvd. for renewal of their on-sale intoxicating and
Sunday liquor license. All criteria were met except for the ordinance requirement regarding food
and liquor sales ratio. City Code Section 3-70 (g) requires on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee to
meet the requirement of at least 50% of the gross receipts attributable to the sale of food.
Liquor license renewal applications require establishments to report their total food and liquor
sales for the previous year. Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill liquor license was approved by
Council on April 5, 2010 and began operation June 4, 2010. Philip Lama, Chief Financial
Officer of the company stated since they have not been in operation for a full 12 months, the
food and liquor sales did not represent an accurate picture of their ratios that are consistent with
their restaurants in other states. Mr. Lama reported 30.92% total gross food sales and 67.16%
total gross liquor sales from receipts of their 7 months of operation in 2010 from June-December.
Attached to this report is a letter received from Kent Kramer, General Manager and Larry
Cappos, Director of Operations of Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill, addressing the food
sales compliance issue.
City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any on-sale intoxicating
liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of food is reported, or
found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year. During the probationary
period, the licensee shall prepare any plans and reports, participate in any required meetings and
take other action that the city may require to increase the sale of food.
City staff proposed to handle this liquor license renewal similar to other past liquor licensees
who have not met the food/liquor sales ratio requirement. Staff will be working with the licensee
to assure they are in compliance for the next year.
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Liquor License Renewal - Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill
Staff is proposing the following conditions be included in the resolution for council
consideration of the renewal of the liquor license for Toby Keith’s I love This Bar:
1. The licensee will be put on a probationary status for 6 months.
2. The license shall provide a second report of food and liquor sales for the period of
January 1, 2011 through August 31, 2011 by September 15, 2011.
3. The licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance
requirements.
4. Staff will report probationary results to Council in September 2011 and if in non-
compliance, council may take further action during this license period up to and
including revocation of the license.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Fees are set based on state statute and are only charged to the extent necessary to cover costs
incurred by the city for services provided by Administrative Services, Police, and Inspections
Departments and are budgeted each year to support the General Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Letter from Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar
Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Liquor License Renewal - Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill
1623 Park Place Boulevard
Saint Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
Phone: 763-450-9999
Fax: 763-450-0625
February 9, 2011
Below is an outline of what we are proposing that may help increase our food sales in order to
become compliant.
• We have reengineered our menu to help drive food sales by adding more of a variety that
will appeal to a broader range of guests. This will help us increase the frequency that our
guests visit us for lunch/dinner. The menu includes several changes to the appetizer menu
which will appeal to more of our late night crowd.
• We will offer our full menu later in to the evening before changing over to the late night
menu.
• We have taken a price increase on our new menu while leaving our bar pricing in place.
• We are going to have our patio opened starting this spring adding 50 seats outside. We
hope to add an estimated 50 seats to our dining section as well to help drive food sales on
busy nights. This will be done by utilizing our semi private dining rooms. We hope to
bring down our 2 hour wait time which can lead to guests leaving our establishment in
search of other dining options. When we opened in June of last year we did not want to
compromise the guest experience by adding 100 more seats to a brand new kitchen.
• We have reviewed our 2011 advertising plan to focus more on driving lunch/dinner food
sales which will lead to an increase in repeat guests. This will help us to develop a more
aggressive plan to create Daily Specials that will drive food sales.
• During the first several months of being open we found several mistakes in our Register
System that caused items not to be recorded in the proper area causing Food sales to be
included in Liquor sales.
Kent Kramer General Manager
Larry Cappos Director of Operations
Study Session Meeting of February 14, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: 2011 Liquor License Renewal - Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 11- _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL WITH CONDITIONS
FOR CRGE MINNEAPOLIS, LLC
DBA TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR,
1623 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD
FOR MARCH 1, 2011 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2012
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3 provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any
on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of
food is reported, or found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council
that the issuance of the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for CRGE Minneapolis,
LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar is hereby approved for March 1, 2011 to March 1, 2012
with the following conditions:
1. The licensee will be put on a probationary status for 6 months.
2. The license shall provide a second report of food and liquor sales for the period of
January 1, 2011 through August 31, 2011 by September 15, 2011.
3. The licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance
requirements.
4. Staff will report probationary results to Council in September 2011 and if in non-
compliance, council may take further action during this license period up to and
including revocation of the license.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk